onebat wrote:Good! I really enjoyed reading that. Seems the info in there would be similar to what this research team is looking for.

Similar, yes, but there are far more close call events than there are undesired events resulting in injury or fatality. By tapping this source of information, a lot can be learned about how to prevent close calls from happening. Since close calls are known to be associated with similar acts and conditions that lead to injuries and fatalities, then preventing or avoiding the acts and conditions that lead to close calls can be a way of preventing injuries and fatalities.

Yes, onebat, that's it exactly. In the field of safety and health, close calls are known as leading indicators. It is also known that a lot more close calls occur than undesired events resulting in injuries or fatalities. This means that gathering information about close calls could give us very good coverage over all the potential events that might occur in *future* caving accidents and incidents. Subsequently using the information from the close calls is, again, hopefully a way to prevent some injuries and fatalities from occurring.

Unfortunately, there will always be bad events in caves. People will get hurt and some will die. There will always be a need for people trained in cave rescue and there will always be a need for publications like American Caving Accidents. But if just one person isn't injured or killed because of something they learn from the results of this study, then its completely worth it to do the research. Of course, we hope that many people will be able to benefit.

I want thank everyone for all the questions and comments and to thank those who have taken the time to complete the survey. Please feel free to continuing commenting and questioning. I believe that its really important to have these kinds of discussions out in the open for all to see and participate in. I'm also thankful for the information I have learned in the few short pages of comments here, particularly about the "Hits and Misses" column that ran in the NSS News in the 1970s, which will become an important literature resources (along with ACA and other publications) in the research.

I think this study would be of great help when training new cavers. I see nothing wrong with sharing this info and getting an ideal of what might be our highest risk. When we do do training knowing what areas we should concentrate on while training. I think it could be a great resource for all. Like Aaron said if it will help save one caver it will all be worth it.

Thanks to all for filling out the survey. There are a lot of responses already!

I'm curious about the perception of the meaning of "psudo-science" used in the post above? As an engineer (PhD) with an undergraduate degree in math, I previously had a negative feeling about this word because the scientific method and well-planned data collection approaches are extremely important to me. However, maybe the usage of the word pseudo-science is not always negative? If it is always negative, what is it about the survey , question design, or the project itself that makes it seem this way? I'm new to the world of human subjects research, so I'm still learning and I'm open to learning new things.

As a general overview, this particular research project was reviewed and approved by a critical Institutional Review Board. It took months of back and forth to get their OK to proceed. Furthermore, one of the world's experts in the Health Belief Model (and in survey design) is just down the hallway from me, so I consulted with this individual numerous times to make sure the questions in the project were properly worded in order to collect usable data. This last part is essential to receive approval from an IRB. Prior to even submitting the proposal, I was required to participate in human subjects research training so that I understood the absolute importance of designing a project that would have positive benefits for society. Hopefully this project design will do this.

The overall project is made up of three major parts: close calls, perceptions of cave-skills training, and beliefs/convictions of experts in caving. Close calls reporting is the first part of the study and is represented by the survey currently being circulated. The second part involves collecting perceptions about formal and informal cave skills training. The third part will involve interviews with caving experts.

As always, please let me know if there are any questions, comments, opinions, feelings, criticisms, or anything. I really do want to be able to take information from this project and turn it into usable training/education outcomes. All feedback is fully welcomed.

Scott McCrea wrote:So, say you find that a caver has a "near miss" every 4.732 caving trips. That is easy, clear data for insurance companies to compare caving to motocross, scuba diving, frolf, mountian biking, etc and adjust rates accordingly. Same with attorneys. They could say you were involved in a "dangerous/hazardous" activity and they have IRB approved data to back it up.

Personally, I want to see the results and learn from them. But, I don't want it to bite us later.

The March 2011 issue of the NSS News in the Caving Chronicles section on pages 24-26 has multiple articles about "What was your scariest moment on rope?" Philip Rykwalder is the author/editor of the column.